On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 10:51:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Very often, when one nation is demanding the death and destruction of
another nation, it's hard to compromise.

Some things "is, or is not". And not much compromise available.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message news:82783ec4-1488-4d95-85fa-
I was brought up believing politics was the ART of compromise.

Did the founding fathers compromise with the British?

Not for lack of trying. In 1766 and 1770, the colonists successfully
imposed upon the British to eliminate taxes. There were a lot of
hotheads on each side, which kept upping the ante, despite some
successes at compromise.

Did Lincoln compromise with the Confederacy?

Again, not for lack of trying. Lincoln practically bent over backwards
to accomodate the Sourth. But there were too many hotheads in South
Carolina.

Did JFK compromise with George Wallace?

Bobby Kennedy tried, on April 25, 1963. Kennedy concluded that they
were dealing with a "raving maniac."


Compromise is great when it's possible. Sometimes the
differences are so great that it isn't possible.

The examples you cite are political failures. The "art" Richard is
talking about constitutes success. There are a lot of reasons that
politics and negotiations may fail, but political success often,
though not always, involves compromise.

All of the conditions necessary for political failure are now in
place, and have been moving ahead for a couple of years. Rescuing
success from that prospect of failure will require some sizeable
changes in attitude, or the electoral failure of the hard-core
extremists.

--
Ed Huntress